Posts from July 2006

July 31, 2006

Ah, my first post-London post. It's nice to be home. Don't get me wrong, I love traveling. Well, I love having traveled. I detest the actual act of traveling.

Especially after I bought dozens of CDs and books in London and then had to buy a new piece of luggage to get them on the plane, but the bag I bought was a piece of crap I got from a London street vendor and the wheels broke before I even got one block from Noel's flat, and I had to fumble my way through Victoria Station, the tube, Euston Station, and the train terminal at Birmingham with this clumsy, wheel-less piece of faux Samsonite.

And then the security folks somewhere along the way decided to pour through my luggage in search of explosives, but all they found were foreign cast albums. But then they failed to put the CDs back into the box I had carefully packed them in, and almost all the CD cases got cracked. No biggie, CD cases are easy to replace, but I was both peeved and miffed, I can tell you.

Anyway, to the subject at hand.

The current high-concept Broadway revival of Sweeney Todd has announced that it will close September 3rd. At that point it will have played 349 performances and 35 previews. That might not sound impressive, but because the show was so economically produced, it made its investment back in only 19 weeks. The show had been playing to about 50% capacity for weeks, so it's no surprise that the producers have decided to close it. But even in those lean weeks, it was pulling in over $300,000, which I would think is more than enough for the show to make a profit.

I wonder which incoming show will snatch up the desirable Eugene O'Neill Theater. Among the shows currently looking for a Broadway berth are Spring Awakening, High Fidelity, and the revival of The Wiz. Also on the horizon are revivals of Sunday in the Park with George and Evita. Perhaps the producers for Evita and High Fidelity will want a bigger house than the 1,100 seat Eugene O'Neill, but successful musicals have played the O'Neill before, including Big River, The Full Monty, Annie, as well as revivals of Grease and Nine.

Whichever show winds up snagging the O'Neill, look for an announcement relatively soon.

July 27, 2006

I honestly don't know which was worse, Billy Elliot or Mary Poppins, although I do seem to be in the minority in both cases, because the audiences were lapping it up. I think I'd rather sit through The Lion King again than see either of these over-hyped and underdeveloped behemoths. At least Julie Taymor gives you something awesome to look at. Both Mary Poppins and Billy Elliot have incomprehensible stories and hideous production values.

Mary Poppins the show is quite different from Mary Poppins the movie, although that in itself isn't really the problem. Stacey had seen the show on a previous trip, and we commiserated when I got home from the Prince Edward. His main gripe was that they seem to have gotten rid of anything that was charming and magical about the original and replaced it with a hodgepodge of random and unconnected material. I must say I agree. There's very little in this show that enchants, and plot is very episodic, with no apparent connection between the scenes.

One good example of what's wrong with this musical is the first production number, "It's a Jolly Holiday with Mary." Understandably, they didn't use the dancing animated penguins from the movie. But they've replaced them with dancing statues that come to life in the park, and the result is not so much enchanting as disturbing. The statues are other-worldy, hideous, and just plain creepy. There's precious little color in this number, except for the costumes on Mary and Bert, and the result is washed-out and lifeless.

In fact, the settings and costumes, which you'd think would be Disney's forte, alternate between the charmlessly literal and the colorlessly impressionistic. The house at 17 Cherry Tree Lane is a slow-moving monstrosity, and most of the rest of the set consists of lifeless black-and-white backdrops colored by the occasional lighting cue.

The added material, of which there is much, does little to enhance the magic of the story. In fact, most of it is tedious, distracting, or both. The added back-story with Mr. and Mrs. Banks plays like a bad after-school special about the importance of paying attention to your family. The added songs were uninteresting and superfluous, provided by the writing team who did Honk! and Just So. It was an interesting choice on Disney's part, but the results were unimpressive.

I had been looking forward to seeing the choreography by Matthew Bourne, he of the all-male Swan Lake fame. I was worried he might be a little too avant garde, but his work ended up being serviceable, if uninspired. One exception was "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," which was a fun sign-language sort of thing in which the cast repeatedly spelled out the word with gestures. It was at least lively, unlike the rest of the show. The only other number that stood out was "Temper Temper," but not because it was good. It's meant to teach us what happens to bad little kids who can't control their tempers, but it comes off as screechy, preachy, and visually unappealling.

I had also been looking forward to seeing American performer Gavin Creel, who started playing Bert this week. But Creel, a talented and engaging performer, is wasted here on a part that is one-dimensional and poorly defined. He's meant to be the narrator, popping up here and there, but since we have no idea who he is or why he's there, it would be very hard for any actor to make an impression.

I would strongly suggest giving Mary Poppins a wide berth. Stay home, rent the movie, and donate the money you save to some Jewish charity, which should make that anti-Semite Walt Disney turn over in his cryogenic grave.

So, I ended my London theatrical jaunt with two shows yesterday: Mary Poppins and Sunday in the Park with George.

We'll start with the good one.

I can't say enough good things about the London revival of Sunday in the Park with George. Yes, the physical production is dazzling. The set comprises a series of digital images that change as George progresses with his masterpiece, "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte." One might perceive this technical achievement as a gimmick, but one would be decidedly wrong. Here's a marvelous example of a design concept that serves to enhance the meaning and dramatic power of the piece. (For an example of what this looks like, check out link to the show's official site above.)

But far more important are the direction and performances in this masterfully executed show. I'm a huge fan of the original production, but this show had me seeing much of it in a new light. I was moved to tears at numerous points in the show, thanks mostly to the stirring performances by Daniel Evans and Jenna Russell as George and Dot. So different from Mandy Patinkin and Bernadette Peters, but oh-so-effective in their own ways.

Evans makes for a far more sympathetic and animated George than Patinkin. At first, I thought this would bother me, because George is emotionally cut off from his surroundings. But Evans eventually convinced me that being emotionally demonstrative is not the same as being emotionally available.

Jenna Russell is a revelation: a dynamic and adorable performer of strength and nuance. Her rapport with Evans actually convinced me that the two were in love, which is something I never quite got from Patinkin and Peters. You could really see why they ultimately did belong together, and this made the show all the more heartbreaking.

Another key to the emotional cadence of the show was Gay Soper's performance as George's mother. Normally one might not think of this part as pivotal, but Soper and her director, Sam Buntrock, use the mother character to infuse the end of act one with a stunning sense of loss. During the scene in which Dot comes to show George his child before she moves to South Carolina, George is sketching his mother and refuses/is unable to look up from his pad at his own child. A terrific scene, but one made all the more powerful by Soper's reaction to the proceedings. Her face registers the heartbreak of a grandmother who will never know her grandchild, and a mother who sees her son fail to...well...connect. Simply heart-rending.

Of course, some might claim the real stars of the show are Buntrock's direction and David Farley's design. And to a certain extent, they would be right. But, again, the direction and design actually serve the piece, enhancing Sondheim and Lapine's brilliant show, and maximizing its emotional impact.

Sunday runs in London until September 2nd, but there's talk of a Broadway run. However and wherever you can, see this show. I can't recommend it highly enough.

July 26, 2006

After last night’s theatrical debacle (see Billy Elliot review below), we were all in need of something to restore our faith in musical theater. And we got that in spades with the new Evita revival.

The production had been receiving terrific notices, but then again so had Billy Elliot, so we really weren’t sure what to expect. What we got was a thoroughly competent re-imagining of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s finest show and his last work with collaborator Tim Rice.

Yeah, I know, “thoroughly competent” isn’t exactly a rave. All three of us really enjoyed the show, but it wasn’t really revolutionary or wildly imaginative. It was just very different from Hal Prince’s original production, and extremely well done. Director Michael Grandage has thrown out most of the original production and started from scratch.

In place of Prince’s stark and cynical staging was a more literal and sympathetic portrait of Eva Peron, first lady of Argentina. The set and physical production were lavish and impressive, although Stacey and Noel, as costumers, had lots to say about the historical accuracy of the clothing. I adore them both, but nothing in what they pointed out really made much of a difference to me. (e.g. In the 40s the breasts would have been more pointy, and the hemlines weren't authentically Dior. Geez Louise.)

The principle performances were uniformly impressive. Elena Rogers as Evita was a spitfire of a presence, and her genuine Argentinean accent lent an air of authenticity to her interpretation. We were told by numerous people here in London that Rogers alone made the production worth seeing, and they were quite right.

Philip Quast as Peron was no less impressive. His six-foot-plus stature made for quite a contrast with that of the diminutive Rogers, but the marked difference in height created a telling irony: the true power of these two characters is inversely proportional to their respective sizes. Quast really brought out Peron’s ambivalence with his wife’s growing control over the people of Argentina and his concurrent increasing powerlessness.

Another star of the show was Rob Ashford’s thrilling choreography. Ashford infuses every number with an infectious energy and a sense of celebration. His repeated tango motif didn’t always work, especially in the opening requiem. But it was quite effective in “The Art of the Possible.” In place of the musical chairs theme of the original production, Ashford has created a somewhat homoerotic dance of power, and the results were chilling. And even though “Waltz for Eva and Che” is, appropriately enough, in three-four time, Ashford’s tango work gave the number a sharp sense of menace.

Is Broadway really ready for an Evita revival? Is Broadway ready for this Evita revival? I’m not sure. The success of this production if/when it moves to New York will probably hinge on the casting, particularly if Equity allows Rogers and Quast to recreate their roles. Matt Rawle as Che was strong-voiced and intense, but his English accent kept poking through and it was distracting and inappropriate. A very competent performer, but replaceable.

Again, the production was very well done, but not really ground-breaking or innovative. In the absence of a radical rethinking of the show, its chance for success with an American audience remains questionable.

July 25, 2006

What a disappointment. Billy Elliot, our first theatrical excursion in London, and the centerpiece of our across-the-pond jaunt, is a big fat dud. A caveat: the audience frigging ate it up, which we all found inexplicable.

What's wrong with it? Where to begin? The thick Yorkshire accents were irritating but excusable. I mean, it takes place in a mining town, after all. It reminded me of when The Secret Garden opened on Broadway and people were annoyed at not being able to understand anything Dickon said. I found such quibbles petty. Well, Billy Elliot took a little extra effort, but you could still get the gist, as one does at an opera, even though it's in another language.

No, the main problem with Billy Elliotis that the scenes themselves are incomprehensible. Even when I understood perfectly what the actors were saying, I still didn't understand what was going on. And I had seen the movie.

The main metaphor of the show is the struggle of the local coal miners to keep their "pit" open and the struggle within Billy to do what he really wants, which is to dance. This came to a dramatic head in the only really transcendent moment in the show, the act I finale, when Billy erupts into a dance of frustration to the counterpoint of the local police force forming a metaphorical wall to block his ambitions. Otherwise, the whole the-coal-miners-versus-the-dancers theme was forced and tedious.

The humor was infantile, consisting of name calling and verbal assaults such as "fat bastard" and "wanker." Elton John's music isn't really any better than his work on Lestat. The sets were the worst I've ever seen on a professional stage, consisting of realistic and dreary flats that the cast had to move themselves at times, which was pointless, because you could see the stage hands helping them, so the actors' actions served no real dramatic purpose.

But the main culprits here are director Stephen Daldry and book-writer and lyricist Lee Hall. They've failed to put together a comprehensible show. There's very little clarity of purpose to any of the songs or scenes. And despite the presence of numerous choreographers, assistant choreographers, and associate choreographers, the dance rarely rose above the serviceable. Particularly disappointing was Billy's dream sequence, when he does a pas de deux with his future self, and for some quizzical reason starts flying through the air like Peter Pan. Huh?

The only other part of the show I even remotely enjoyed was the curtain call, when the entire cast comes on stage in ballet attire and starts to...um...tap? Besides the act I finale, it was only time the choreography was at all interesting, but why were they tapping? Billy's attending the royal ballet school, not the Royal Tap Academy. And the cast are all in tutus. It was fun stuff, but it didn't really make sense.

But, again, here's the funny thing: the audience went wild. Are we just a trio of jaded, aging theater queens, or is this one of those parochial British pieces that New York audiences just won't buy? (e.g. We Will Rock You, Dirty Dancing)Has anyone out there seen Billy Elliot? Are we just being picky, or are we accurate in saying that the piece meant well, but on the whole it just doesn't work?

July 23, 2006

So, I made it to London. I can never sleep on planes, so whenever I come to Europe, I inevitably lose a night's sleep on the flight over. But somehow, I've managed to stay awake for 48 hours straight, mostly thanks to some lovely Twinings Assam tea, and my charming and gracious host, the redoubtable Mr. Noel Howard, costumer to the stars.

Literally. Noel has been in the costuming biz for...well, longer than he'd probably like me to enumerate. He was just telling me how he recently did the costumes for the movie X-Men 3. I pumped him for information about taking Hugh Jackman's inseam measurement, but he remained discrete. Damn, those English folk and their exasperating propriety! He did, however, point out that we can see Mr. Jackman's bedroom from the window of Noel's office. I must say, I'm all a twitter.

Anyway, so I got here in London this morning at about 8AM, and once I got settled, I had vague notions of going to Leicester Square and getting half-price tickets to some West End matinee. Only to find out that West End shows are traditionally dark on Sunday. Quelle dommage. I did find out that there were a few isolated shows that have Sunday shows: Stomp, Blue Man Group, and The Lion King.

Seen it, seen it, seen it.

It's interesting that Lion King is the only major West End musical with a Sunday show. Basically, Disney realized that it wasn't going to get the blue-hair crowd at a Wednesday or Thursday matinee (the latter is far more common in London), and said "Screw it, we need the kids, and the kids are going to come on the weekends." Religious observances, custom, and tradition be damned.

So this afternoon, instead of seeing a show, I went to the National Gallery and the Courtauld Gallery to check out Seurat's "Bathers at Asnieres" and "Young Woman Powdering Herself" respectively, both of which feature prominently in Sunday in the Park with George, which I'm seeing Wednesday at the Wyndham. I love the thought of seeing this show in the city where some of Seurat's most important works reside. The only thing better would be a production at the Goodman Theater followed by a viewing of the actual "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" at the Art Institute of Chicago. But this comes in an extremely close second.

Stay tuned for reviews of Billy Elliot, Evita, Mary Poppins, and the aforementioned Sunday. I might also see something at a Thursday matinee. Maybe something I know is going to be gawd-awful, like The Woman in White or Whistle Down the Wind.

July 21, 2006

OK, it's official. Everything I'm seeing on my upcoming trip to London has been either announced or rumored for a Broadway run, thus rendering my London trip, at least from a musical-theater standpoint, somewhat redundant.

On Monday night, we see Billy Elliot, which is likely to come across the pond in 2008. On Tuesday night, we're taking in the revival of Evita, which is a Broadway possibility for the 2007-2008 season. On Wednesday night, I'm seeing Mary Poppins, which is already in rehearsals for a November bow at the New Amsterdam. Stacey has already seen it, so he won't be joining me.

And for the Wednesday matinee, I'll be taking in the revival of Sunday in the Park with George. This production is the reason we had the idea of going to London in the first place, although Stacey has since opted not to see the show so he can conserve cash (and spend it on Portobello Road).

Well, now there's a possibility that Sunday might be coming to New York, too. Which means I could have just waited and seen all of these shows stateside.

Ah, well.

Of course, there are plenty of other reasons to go to London. I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure they exist.

[Rim-shot]

But seriously folks, I am still looking forward to the trip, if only to claim bragging rights for having seen these shows before their respective New York transplantations. I guess I'll also be soaking in the historic glory that is London, visiting a museum or two, and avoiding the food.

Oh, and blogging about the experience to share my thoughts a views with all you wonderful people...out there...in the dark...

July 20, 2006

The Off-Broadway hit Spring Awakening will be moving to Broadway. Duncan Sheik's hit, currently playing at the Atlantic Theater Company, will be looking for a Broadway berth come fall.

The upcoming musical season is shaping up to be very interesting:

Legally BlondeHigh Fidelity The Times, They Are A Changin'Grey GardensSpring AwakeningMary Poppins

Anyone care to take a guess as to what four shows will receive a best-musical nomination? Yeah, it's a bit premature. But Grey Gardens and Spring Awakening have already established themselves as crowd pleasers, and to a certain extent critic pleasers, so they seem very likely to get nods. Mary Poppins is a huge hit in London, but that don't mean nothin' when it comes to nominations.

High Fidelity and Legally Blonde could go one way or the other. (I just got my ticket for the Boston tryout of High Fidelity, so I'll be sure to let you know what I think once I've seen it.) And Twyla Tharp's new Bob Dylan piece certainly has a shot, although I'm not a huge fan of Movin' Out.

Two remote possibilities I've left off the above list are Princesses and A Tale of Two Cities, but as I said yesterday, I don't really see either of those really coming to Broadway, at least not this season. Oh, and then there's The Grinch, which is scheduled for a limited run at the newly vacated Hilton Theater.

All in all, an intriguing season coming up, filled with unlikely Off-Broadway transfers, over-hyped behemoths, and everything in between.

July 19, 2006

At any given time, there are numerous musicals circling
Broadway in a holding pattern, waiting for a suitable theater to open up so the
show can come in for a landing. Many shows are announced for their Broadway
bows, only to run out of gas mid air. (OK, enough with the airplane analogy.) Sometimes this is because the show can't find a suitable venue, or at least that's what the producers say. More likely it's because the show just isn't working out.

But what is true is that a show only really becomes a
serious Broadway contender when it finds a theater. (So now I’ve moved on to boxing analogies. Just add metaphors
and stir, that’s what I always say.)

So anyway, thanks to the deservedly abbreviated run of Lestat, the glorious Palace Theater is
now vacant, giving the new Legally Blonde
tuner a very luxurious venue to settle into. Let's hope the show fares better than the theater's previous tenant.

Other shows that are currently looking for theaters include High Fidelity, which is scheduled for a Boston tryout very soon, so it's more than just a glimmer in its creators' eyes. Less concrete, and somewhat less likely to actually make it to Broadway, are new shows Princesses and A Tale of Two Cities, and a revival of The Wiz.

Why less likely? I don't know, I just don't see them happening. A Tale of Two Cities seems like just another Les Miz wannabe. Princesses really hasn't been generating much press or word of mouth. And do we really need a revival of The Wiz, even if the talented Des McAnuff is at the helm? Yeah, he directed Jersey Boys and Tommy. But he also directed Dracula.

July 18, 2006

In a move that surprised absolutely no one, the producers of Hot Feet have announced that the show will close July 23rd.

Regular readers will recall that I had developed an obsession over the fact that Hot Feet remained open despite dismal notices and empty houses. I guess I'll have to move on to another morbid fascination.

Schadenfreude? Not really. I'm all for any show staying open if it's going to keep people gainfully employed. But Hot Feet was hemorrhaging cash every week, and that's just not sustainable.

"Any show"? Hmm, any show. I'll have to give that some thought. Am I really in favor of anyshow remaining open as long as someone receives employment? Jekyll & Hyde? Oh, Calcutta? Brooklyn? Good Vibrations? Cats? Starlight Express? Lestat?

The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee will play the woefully underused Wilbur Theater for what looks like an extended stay starting September 26, 2006. Tickets go on sale to the general public on July 30th, but the Huntington Theater has arranged for "friends of the Huntington" to get advanced tickets through Ticketmaster (617-931-2787 or www.ticketmaster.com). Just enter the code HTC when you place your order. No discount, but you get first shot at the best seats, and a portion of the proceeds go to help the Huntington do its theater thing.

Simply put, you must see this show. It's absolutely hysterical, but it's also very touching. I recently saw it again, and the show gets richer with repeated viewings, especially William Finn's rich and accessible score, Rachel Sheinkin's smart and funny book, and James Lapine's subtle and sharp direction.

Of course, I must confess a bias. The first time I saw the show I was one of the audience members called up to participate in the bee. It was a blast. At the risk of self-aggrandizement, I must relate that I was the last audience member eliminated. In fact, they had to break out a special list of killer words to get me off stage:

"Spell 'ouabain'" "Could I have a definition, please?""It's a poison derived from African tree frogs used at the end of blow darts." "Could I have it in a sentence?""Spell 'ouabain' wrong so we can get on with the frigging show."

But now that I've seen the show again, I think I can be reasonably objective. Well, as objective as any theater queen can be when discussing musical theater.

July 16, 2006

Say what you want about Barry and Fran Weissler, they've somehow managed to keep Chicago running for almost ten years, despite the phenomenal success of the movie version. (Or perhaps because of it.) And a lot of the show's staying power has come from stunt casting: bringing in brand-name stars to stoke the public's interest. Previous stars have included Taye Diggs, Rita Wilson, and Melanie Griffith. Now comes what could be their biggest casting coup of all: pop star Usher.

Now, let's distinguish stunt casting from star shows. The latter exist solely to showcase the talents of one particular performer, often despite the questionable quality of the show itself (cf. The Boy from Oz). We've seen a certain sub-species of star shows of late: revivals of decent or even great shows that last only as long as their stars are in them (Antonio Banderas in Nine, Harry Connick Jr. in The Pajama Game).

Stunt casting, other the other hand, occurs when producers bring in the names to keep an otherwise successful show going relatively late in its run (e.g. Reba McIntyre in Annie Get Your Gun or Joey Fatone in Rent). But stunt casting doesn't work when the production itself is of questionable value (e.g. Cathy Rigby in Seussical or Joey Fatone in Little Shop of Horrors).

I have little doubt that Usher in Chicago will be very lucrative for the Weisslers. But I have a feeling that his presence will distract people from the show itself. The audience won't really be there to witness Kander & Ebb's terrific score or Bob Fosse's cynical book and stunning choreography. (Yeah, I know, Ann Reinking received the credit and the Tony. But c'mon, we all know whose work is really on that stage.)

I saw The Drowsy Chaperone again last night, and I had a ball. Yeah, I know. I recently blogged about how listening to the Drowsy Chaperone CD gave me second thoughts about the show. But seeing it again reminded me of just how frigging funny the damn thing is. I'd heard it all before, and I was still in stitches.

Robert Martin is priceless as Man in Chair. I adore Sutton Foster in whatever she does, and this show is certainly no exception. Tony-winner Beth Leavel is an overly-mannered joy as the title character. And Danny Burstein lovingly chews the scenery as the pompous Aldolpho.

Actually, Burstein's big number is a great example of how the humor of the show just doesn't translate well to the CD. "I Am Aldolpho" is a lame, lame song, but deliberately so. It's Burstein's spot-on performance, as well as Leavel's, that makes the number a stitch.

Yeah, the show isn't perfect. "Cold Feets" really didn't hold up upon a second viewing. Casey Nicholaw does a terrific job staging "Toledo Surprise" and most of the other numbers, but the tap choreography in "Cold Feets" remains resolutely earthbound.

Also, a minor point, but the premise of the show rests on a false conceit: Man in Chair puts his favorite cast album on his turntable and the show comes to life around him. But cast albums didn't exist in the 1920s. The first full-length cast album was The Cradle Will Rock, which came in the 30s, and the first fully orchestrated one didn't come until 1943, with Oklahoma! And the whole stylized gangsters-in-disguise thing is an obvious reference to Guys and Dolls, which opened in 1950.

Even so, the musical-theater historian in me is willing to pardon these transgressions. The Drowsy Chaperone is an affectionate, infectious valentine to musicals and the people who love them.

July 14, 2006

Malcolm Gladwell, in his best-selling book The Tipping Point, describes a number of types of people that generate word of mouth, including a "maven," whom Gladwell describes as someone who influences what other people buy or places that other people patronize. As experts in their particular fields of interest, mavens are the go-to people for advice on what's hot and what's not.

On a related note, theater producers have begun to experiment with new digital forms of marketing, including plying bloggers with free theater tickets in the hopes that they will write about their shows and influence other people to come see them.

Attention theater producers: I am a maven. So ply away. (I don't know if mavens can be self-appointed, but I'm not one for protocol.)

As I've demonstrated amply in these pages, I have knowledge and opinions about musical theater, and I have no compunction about sharing those views with others. I'm the unofficial musical dramaturg for the Boston Gay Men's Chorus, the resident expert on all things Broadway. I'm a professor of musical theater at the Boston Conservatory of Music, responsible for shaping the minds of the current and future theater queens of America. And my blog is slowly but surely building up a loyal following.

I have no shame: send me free tickets. I promise to be fair but honest in my estimations of your respective shows. I'll even come to a different city: have blog, will travel.

Um...unless it's a touring company of Lestat. I'd sooner watch an all-day marathon of The 700 Club.

July 13, 2006

Hey, just when you thought Disney had lost its stage magic (Tarzan, anyone?) comes an intriguing announcement: Disney has signed cartoonist Jules Pfeiffer and composer/lyricist Andrew Lippa to create a musical based on the children's book The Man in the Ceiling. Haven't heard of the book, but I guess it's about a kid who wants to become a cartoonist (thus Pfeiffer's involvement).

It reminds me of when Disney announced that Julie Taymor would design and direct The Lion King. At that point, she was only known as a very interesting but avant-garde stage artist, so Disney was taking a real chance on her. I guess after playing it safe with Tarzan and Mary Poppins, Disney decide it was worth throwing an untried property into the mix.

Of course, both Pfeiffer and Lippa have worked on musicals before, so they're not complete unknowns. But it's nice to see Disney doing something besides bringing their animated films alive onstage.

July 11, 2006

The producers of the revival of The Pajama Gamehave opted to abandon a commercial Broadway transfer. Which really is no surprise. But what is a bit jarring is their reasoning: there's no suitable theater available for the show to transfer to.

Oh, really? How about the fact that none of the stars from the original production (Harry Connick Jr., Kelli O'Hara, and Michael McKean) would make the transfer? Or the fact that the show, although nicely directed and staged by Kathleen Marshall, really isn't anything super special?

And besides, isn't the Belasco empty? It's not a huge house, but it's housed musicals before (Dracula, Follies, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes). And nothing's playing right now in the Cort, which actually has a few more seats than the Belasco. And I can't imagine Martin Short's Fame Becomes Me is going to play very long at the Jacobs, or is that just me?

Yeah, the vacancy rate on Broadway now is pretty low. (Which is a good thing, unless you're the producer of a show like High Fidelity, which doesn't really have a place to land right now after its pre-Broadway tryout in Boston.) But to blame the high occupancy rate for the decision not to bring The Pajama Game to a commercial house seems disingenuous.

July 10, 2006

Geez, it seems like everyone these days is working on a new musical. Upcoming projects include an adaptation of a movie (the genre du jour) and a real live actual original, not based on any Hollywood blockbuster (Legally Blonde, Gladiator) or best-selling book (Lestat, Wicked) or lame-ass TV show (The Apprentice) or aging-rocker songbook ([insert name of any jukebox musical here]).

The movie adaptation is Grumpy Old Men, yet another tuner based on a movie that I've never seen (e.g. Wedding Singer, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Footloose, etc.) I actually find this idea intriguing, because if it works, it will give work to some more mature actors, much in the same way that Mamma Mia does currently. Say what you want about Mamma Mia: it's keeping a number of people employed who might not otherwise have much opportunity. The staff for Grumpy Old Men includes Neil Berg, composer of the recent Prince and the Pauper, which, although relatively unknown, has much to recommend it.

Also in the works is Jerry Christmas, with a score by Andrew Lippa (The Wild Party, Jon and Jen, You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, etc.), a terrific composer and decent lyricist who has yet to have a really big hit. The story concerns a Jewish movie star who puts on a TV Christmas special in an attempt to revive a flagging career. Sounds like a potential hoot. The show will have a trial run at Vassar College with some pretty high-powered Broadway talent in the cast, including Douglas Sills, Lee Wilkoff, Christopher Fitzgerald, and tony-winner Adriane Lenox.

July 07, 2006

As I mentioned not long ago, Broadway folk refer to the weekly costs of running a particular show as a "nut." Well, I was reading a very interesting article about the business of Broadway, and it got me thinking about nuts. (More than usual, that is. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more...)

The cost of mounting a new musical today is typically more than $12 million, which means most shows need to run at least a year and a half at capacity to make their money back and start earning a profit. A ginormous show like Wicked has a nut of about $650,000, but since it's been playing to SRO crowds pretty much since it opened, and taking in some $1,400,000 a week in ticket sales, it was able to recoup in 14 months.

Of course, smaller shows recoup faster, as I discussed in a recent blog. Avenue Q has a weekly nut of only $275,000, partly because it only has 7 actors onstage, compared to about 30 for Wicked, so Avenue Q was able to recoup in less than a year.

Which brings me to my latest obsession: Why is Hot Feet still running? The show has about as many actors onstage as Wicked, but it's taking in less per week than Avenue Q needs to make a profit. Last week the Hot Feet earned a paltry $263,159, which has to be far less that the show's weekly operating costs. Evidently, someone's vanity is at stake here. For some reason, the producers seem to be willing to operate at a loss while they hope for some miracle to kick in.

It ain't gonna happen. The show opened to embarrassing reviews, and word of mouth is practically nonexistent. Someone seems to know that the show doesn't have any legs, because the Hilton Theater has been booked for the stage version of The Grinch for the holiday season. In the meantime, the producers of Hot Feet seem to be operating some charitable operation to keep a bunch of actors and backstage folk gainfully employed.

July 06, 2006

Trevor Nunn recently announced that he would be directing a London production of a revamped version of the Gershwins' Porgy and Bess, a historically important show that is well worth reviving. (Notice I didn't say "an historically." God, I hate that. It's a great example of "over-refinement," like when people erroneously say "between you and I" under the false impression that using "I" will make them sound classy. No, it makes you sound stupid.)

Porgy and Bess marked the first time that a piece of musical theater attempted to portray the lives of African Americans accurately. Other than Show Boat, P&B was the first attempt to show blacks as three-dimensional people. Of course, it's pretty darned depressing, and came under fire for supposedly focusing too much on the negative. The show was a financial failure in its initial Broadway incarnation, but it later went on to become a staple in the repertoires of opera companies worldwide.

Of course, the key phrase there is "opera companies." Trevor Nunn says that he hopes to bring the show and its glorious music to the fore of American musical theater as well. The show will be trimmed down from "a four-hour opera to a two-and-a-half hour musical." If the show is a success in London, there's talk of a Broadway run. The last time Porgy and Bess trod the boards of the Rialto was 30 years ago. It will be very interesting to see whether Nunn is successful in breathing new life into this admirable show.

July 05, 2006

Saw The Pajama Gamerevival last night. Very impressed. One thing Stacey and I kept commenting on was how much more distinctive and sharp Kathleen Marshall's choreography is compared to her brother's. Rob Marshall has simply never really impressed me, on stage or screen. Harry Connick, Jr. was far more relaxed and natural than he appeared on the Tony broadcast. Kelli O'Hara was a tad less spunky, but nonetheless an impressive and fiery Babe.

The only major problem we had with the show was "Steam Heat," the staging of which was a thankless task for Marshall. How do you reinvent a number that's so iconic and so closely associated with Bob Fosse? Well, Marshall chose an homage approach, and the results were unsatisfying.

Again, Pajama Game was the first musical I ever did, at the tender age of 13, so I have a special fondness for the show. But the book is showing its age. Some of the scenes are downright creaky, and a number of the songs just don't come off, particularly "Her Is." The songs added to the show for the revival came off pretty well, especially "The World Around Us," which was cut from the original during its tryout, and "If You Win You Lose," which was written for but cut from the movie version with Doris Day. Both songs add a needed bit of introspection to the second act. But the number added for Heinsy and Gladys, "The Three of Us," seems superfluous. At that point in the second act, we just want to wrap things up.

Also saw a video of The Boy from Oz. Wow, was it awful. Hugh Jackman is adorable, and I'd watch him paint flats for two and a half hours, but the show itself is ludicrous, crass, and amateurish. Isabel Keating and Stephanie Block as Judy Garland and Liza Minnelli, respectively, try gamely to give their material some life, but to little avail. Yeah, Peter Allen's life comprised some dramatic events and some colorful characters, but they really aren't enough to fill an entire evening, at least as this show presents them.

The show reminded me of the pointless star shows from the 40s and 50s, the ones we'll never see again because the original star is not around, and, really, what's the point? Other than seeing Jackman with his shirt off, there really wasn't much point to The Boy from Oz. Let's hope Jackman's next Broadway venture gives him a little more substance to play with.